Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS

I was going to bring exactly same point.

Over the last 6 months, in protocol/ services related modeling work we have put lot of effort trying to align with OpenConfig.
Keeping this alignment with base MPLS model would be rather logical step.

Regards,
Jeff

> On Feb 9, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There is a consolidated MPLS model introduced by OpenConfig, the 02 version publisehd in October of last year.  
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model-02
> 
> It has a base model which then has three different sub-models defined in the hierarchy covering types of LSPs: static, IGP-congruent/unconstrained (routing-dependent), and TE/constrained.  
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Phil 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
> Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 10:43
> To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS
> 
>> 
>> My preference wasn’t quite clear in the previous email, so let me state it explicitly - (1), IMO, MPLS base should reside off the root, and for (2) it might be worth dividing the subsequent models as either non-routing or routing, given that MPLS control plane e.g. LDP would be routing dependent, whereas static LSP _could_ not be. 
>> 
>> For (2), a hierarchy something like his works out (where non-routing is nothing but MPLS base)
>> 
>>    MPLS Base
>>        <non-routing>
>>            Static LSP
>>        <routing>
>>            Static LSP
>>            Dynamic LSP - LDP, mLDP, RSVP-TE, 
>> 
>> 
>> However, it creates an interesting challenge for aligning the yang models and while keeping the hierarchy simple.
>> 
>> 
>> Is it worth having a focused team figuring out MPLS base staying off the root, whereas routing-dependent MPLS control plane protocols e.g. LDP staying off routing?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>> Rajiv Asati
>> Distinguished Engineer, Cisco
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com>
>> Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 8:58 AM
>> To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS
>> 
>>> Loa,
>>> 
>>> I definitely agree (co-author hat off, and user hat on). Avoiding duplication and doing better organization would indeed be a good thing to do.   
>>> 
>>> 1) If MPLS base model (and subsequent models - LDP, TE etc.) augments the (IP) routing/routing-protocol, then it might not well apply to GMPLS. Is there an existing thought-process on this topic? 
>>> 
>>> Either ignore the above and have GMPLS argument mpls base model as is, or get MPLS base on an independent path (off of (IP) routing/routing-protocol) and work out the subsequent models.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2) In terms of hierarchy, is the below envisioned?
>>> 
>>>    MPLS base => Static LSP and dynamic LSP
>>>        MPLS static LSP => 
>>>        MPLS dynamic LSP =>    
>>>            LDP
>>>            mLDP (MP)
>>>            TE (RSVP-TE P2P)
>>>            TE (RSVP-TE P2MP)                
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rajiv  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
>>> Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 7:34 AM
>>> To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
>>> Subject: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS
>>> 
>>>> All,
>>>> 
>>>> We have had discussion among the MPLS, TEAS and CCAMP working group
>>>> chairs - but as individual contributors, with chair half off. We agree
>>>> that this discussion should be taken to the working group(s).
>>>> 
>>>> The YANG models for MPLS and GMPLS are quite rapidly taking shape. MPLS
>>>> and GMPLS technologies have traditionally been very close, but their
>>>> development has been a bit disjoint. For the YANG models we would like
>>>> to minimize duplication of models/work and think the structure should
>>>> have a common the top,  with specific technologies augmented below.
>>>> 
>>>> The structure in general as well as the YANG model at the common top
>>>> needs to be the generic and aligned across the output of at least
>>>> CCAMP, MPLS and TEAS working groups. There has been good work 
>>>> progressing on TE specifics, e.g., see draft-ietf-teas-yang-te, but
>>>> other areas remain. On the LDP side of the house draft-raza-mpls-
>>>> ldp-mldp-yang is rapidly progressing towards working group adoption.
>>>> 
>>>> The models defined in draft-saad-mpls-static-yang could serve as the
>>>> start on filling some of the remaining gaps; covering core xMPLS
>>>> definitions and static LSPs.  There are a number of ways to make the
>>>> structure intuitive and generic, and serve as a foundation for
>>>> technology specific models.  -- This effort can be viewed as the same
>>>> type of work that was done for TE, see draft-ietf-teas-yang-te.
>>>> 
>>>> We think it would be a good idea  if the authors and the  WG considers
>>>> how to structure xMPLS definitions and static LSPs models to best
>>>> foster common use across the different related models being worked on 
>>>> across  different WGs.
>>>> 
>>>> We are sending this mail in hopes of getting this discussion started.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Lou and Loa
>>>> -- 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
>>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
>>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mpls mailing list
>>>> mpls@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls